John A. Jackson v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that MetLife's decision to deny benefits was supported by substantial evidence where an independent physical therapy clinic reviewed the claimant's physical capacity
• considering plan’s “highly-specific definition of ‘disabled,’” and holding that administrator was not bound by determination that participant was “disabled” under similar, but different, definition employed by Social Security Administration
• stating an FCE “alone constitutes more than a scintilla of evidence” in finding the results of an FCE support an administrator’s denial of benefits even where there is competing evidence from claimant’s treating physician
• “We have held that a treating physician’s opinion is generally entitled to greater deference in an ERISA disability case than the opinion of a reviewing physician.”
• “It is not certain that the SSA still would have concluded that Jackson was entitled to disability benefits had it reviewed the same record that was before MetLife.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).